If you’re leading grid-hardening or wildfire mitigation work in 2025, you already know this: the pressures are mounting.
Extreme weather, wildfire risk, aging assets, electrification demand, and an evolving regulatory environment are pushing utilities to act faster, build smarter, and deliver more resilient infrastructure. But there’s a risk that rarely makes it into boardroom slides or public-facing capital plans—material shortages.
It’s not as visible as a missed energization date. It doesn’t carry the drama of a failed inspection or the audit risk of a missing QA document. But supply-side friction is quietly undermining resilience efforts at the execution level, and unless it’s addressed as a core part of capital strategy—not just procurement—many of today’s well-intended programs will struggle to deliver on their promises.
The Delays Are Real And They’re Strategic, Not Just Logistical
Composite pole lead times are stretching past 40 weeks. Conductor availability fluctuates weekly based on manufacturing backlogs and commodity pricing. Even relatively simple components—insulators, crossarms, pole-top hardware—are turning into long-lead liabilities as demand overwhelms suppliers.
These aren’t one-off anecdotes. They’re emerging patterns across multiple utilities and program types: wildfire mitigation in California, storm hardening in the Gulf, substation builds tied to data center loads in the Midwest.
And the impact? Projects stall in place. Work sequences break apart. Crews go idle. Rework compounds. And the credibility of resilience plans—internally and externally—begins to erode.
When materials fail to show up on time, the work doesn’t just slow down. It becomes reactive, fragmented, and vulnerable to every other external variable—weather, outage coordination, contractor availability.
Material shortages in grid resilience projects are quietly derailing wildfire mitigation efforts.
Planning for Execution Without Planning for Materials Is a False Start
Too often, utilities build project plans under the assumption that materials will arrive “as expected.” But in the current environment, “as expected” is the exception—not the baseline.
What happens, in practice, is this:
A detailed work plan is developed. Labor is mobilized. Construction is sequenced tightly to outage windows. Everyone’s aligned. Except… the conductor doesn’t arrive. Or half the poles are missing. Or the transformer that’s critical to energization was rerouted to another project by the supplier.
At that point, it’s too late to fix it. You’re no longer managing a project—you’re managing delay.
Crews pivot to what they can complete, even if it’s out of sequence. QA gets decoupled from the original timeline. Energization dates slide. And every step of that detour adds cost, risk, and confusion—without ever being documented as a direct failure. But it is a failure. A structural one.
The Bigger Problem: We’ve Isolated Procurement From Field Reality
The real vulnerability isn’t the global supply chain. It’s the gap between material logistics and project execution.
Material data typically lives in separate systems—managed by procurement, tracked by logistics teams, and surfaced via monthly reports. But those systems don’t speak the language of the field. They don’t understand the sequence. They don’t flag risk based on outage windows or contractor standby costs.
So, even when the material data exists, it’s not influencing real construction decisions in real time.
In essence, utilities are building field plans on assumed readiness, not verified availability. And in 2025, that’s operationally indefensible.
A Field-First Perspective on Material Risk
At Think Power Solutions, we believe material readiness isn’t a supply chain function—it’s a construction strategy imperative. It’s one of the first things we validate when we’re brought into major capital programs, especially those on compressed or seasonal timelines.
Our oversight teams work closely with utility partners to identify high-risk materials from day one. That means more than asking what’s been ordered. It means understanding the downstream impact of each item:
- If that specific class of pole shows up three weeks late, what work gets pushed?
- If a transformer slips into Q3 delivery, what other scopes become stranded?
- If a storm damages access roads during that waiting period, what’s the contingency?
Construction Isn’t Just About What You Build—It’s About What You Sequence
One of the most underappreciated risks in grid resilience projects is project fragmentation. When material delays force resequencing, crews work around the gaps. But these workarounds often don’t reconnect cleanly.
A single missing component can create four to five follow-up truck rolls. It can trigger remobilization costs. It can create mismatch between field records and project management systems. And it introduces risk during audit, where regulators or commissions expect closed-loop proof of readiness.
By integrating material realities into construction planning, we’ve helped utilities shift from reactive resequencing to intentional realignment. That doesn’t mean delaying entire projects. It means understanding which scopes can advance without introducing fragmentation—and which should wait until the right materials are in place.
This Is a Leadership Conversation
Material management cannot sit in an operational silo. It has to be elevated to the strategic layer of project governance.
Why? Because what’s at stake isn’t just delivery—it’s defensibility.
- Can you explain, under regulatory scrutiny, why crews were idle while the wildfire season advanced?
- Can you defend cost overruns when project fragmentation was avoidable?
- Can you validate to the public that you used resilience funding efficiently?
Grid resilience isn’t just what you build. It’s how you execute. And in today’s climate, building around material blind spots is no longer an option.
The Think Power Commitment
At Think Power Solutions, we help utilities bridge the operational gap between material availability and project execution. Our approach brings logistics out of the spreadsheet and into the strategic decision-making process.
We don’t manage procurement. We manage risk—in the field, in the sequence, in the integrity of the capital plan. And we do it in a way that keeps contractors moving, field data accurate, and leadership informed—before timelines fall apart.
Because a project that looks great in Primavera but fails in the field isn’t a resilience success story. It’s a missed opportunity.
Let’s talk!
If you’re navigating capital programs where material uncertainty is already showing up—or you suspect it will—let’s make sure your execution strategy is built for that reality.
Linkedin
